Munir Ahmad vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Munir Ahmad VS State Ss. 302, 324, 337-a(ii), 337-F(iv) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Delay in sending the weapon of offence and crime empties for analysis---Consequential---accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his daughter---Investigating Officer took into possession two empties of cartridges from the place of occurrence on 08.06.2018, however, the same were deposited with the office of Forensic Science agency on 22.06.2018 after a delay of thirteen days---Similarly, the weapon of offence (gun 12-bore) allegedly recovered on the pointing out of the appellant on 02.07.2018 was deposited with the office of Forensic Science agency on 11.07.2018 with the delay of eight days---Such undue delay in sending the crime empties and weapon of offence to the office of Forensic Science agency made the recovery doubtful---as the crime empties and the crime weapons were retained in the Malkhana unnecessarily for a long period, matching of empty with the gun appeared to be fabricated and possibility of tampering with the same could not be ruled out, therefore, the opinion of the firearm expert in this case regarding matching of the lead with the crime weapon was discarded---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Munir Ahmad VS State Ss. 302, 324, 337-a(ii), 337-F(iv) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Dishonest improvements made by witnesses in their statements---accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his daughter---In the application and the FIR, it was mentioned that injured received the fire shot made by an accused at the right side of her chest and arm, whereas in the complaint the complainant had improved/changed the locale of injuries of injured by mentioning that she sustained gun shot at her face, left side of her shoulder and left side of her chest---Version of witnesses was not even in line with the said improved version regarding the injuries on the person of injured---Injured specifically stated that accused made a fire shot with his gun, but she sustained a few superficial injuries as compared to the deceased---Due to the said dishonest improvements and contradictions, made by the witnesses in their statements, they were not truthful witnesses and their evidence was not worthy of reliance---From the testimony of the eye-witnesses it could safely be inferred that they had been unable to convince regarding their veracity and truthfulness as to the mode and manner and how the offence took place---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Munir Ahmad VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the receipt of the injury, kind of weapon, duration between the injury and the death, but it cannot connect the accused with the commission of crime. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Munir Ahmad VS State Ss. 302, 324, 337-a(ii), 337-F(iv) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence doubtful---accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his daughter---as per contents of FIR as well as private complaint, the complainant was not an eye-witness of the occurrence as in both those documents his presence had not been mentioned anywhere and it had been alleged that the two witnesses attended the deceased---Complainant while appearing before the Court had also deposed that said two witnesses were coming on cart behind the cart of deceased, who witnessed the occurrence and tried to take care of deceased---although, the complainant had stated that he and one of the eye-witnesses who took deceased in injured condition to the hospital on a motorcycle and their clothes received blood stains at that time, however, he had admitted that they did not produce their clothes to the police---Said witness was not examined by the prosecution being unnecessary---Moreover, the Investigating Officer had deposed that according to the statements of complainant and witnesses made before him the deceased was shifted to hospital on a car and he did not take into possession that car---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Munir Ahmad VS State Ss. 302, 324, 337-a(ii), 337-F(iv) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence---Inconsistencies---accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his daughter---as per prosecution's case, the deceased received three fire shots of 12-bore gun on his chest at the hands of appellant and co-accused (since acquitted)---However, no specification about the locale of the fires and the injuries allegedly made by the said accused was furnished by the witnesses of ocular account---Moreover, none of the accused was assigned the role of causing four injuries on the body of the deceased---So far as one injury on the chest of the deceased was concerned, the same was the result of fire shots made by the appellant and his acquitted co-accused with their respective guns---However, the Medical Officer had admitted that the injuries might be of one cartridge---Medical Officer had also admitted that there was only one injury on the chest of the deceased, which was caused by 63 pellets---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Munir Ahmad VS State Ss. 302, 324, 337-a(ii), 337-F(iv) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the instance of accused---No independent witness of recovery proceedings---accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and causing firearm injuries to his daughter---Record showed that gun 12-bore was recovered on the instance of appellant---alleged occurrence took place on 08.06.2018, the appellant was arrested on 22.06.2018 and on 02.07.2018 he got recovered the weapon of offence (gun 12-bore) from an iron box lying in room of his house, in the presence of witnesses---although, recovery witness (brother of the deceased) had been examined, but no independent witness of recovery was cited by the prosecution despite the fact that as per testimony of said witness, at the time of preparation of recovery memo, many persons gathered there---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Munir Ahmad VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---a single instance causing reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court entitles the accused to the benefit of the same not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right.

Munir Ahmad vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1650 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR